Watch your national news tomorrow 6/19 for the start of the fuel revolt.
Fed up with $5+ diesel, a thousand truckers are going to shut down the capital of New York (Albany) in protest. This after state leaders refused to even talk to representatives of the truckers.
The only response initially was that the Albany police would put up road blocks all around the city and refuse to let any trucks enter. When this threat was met with laughter the city politicos relented and said it was OK for US citizens to travel freely in their own country (what a great bunch of guys).
The leaders of the NYS legislature in response to the plight of the truckers (some of whom are losing their trucks and homes) was to propose INCREASING taxes on oil companies which would add another 10 cents to diesel.
I'd watch this one folks. The protesters say this will be peaceful but with the attitude I'm seeing from state government it might get nasty. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Various banks and other institutions who are in the business of lending money ... Didn't cost the taxpayers a dime."
Yeah, right. And "various banks" bailed out Bear Stearns, too. It wasn't actually the Federal Reserve Bank. And my money market rates didn't actually plummet as a result. The value of the U.S. dollar is just fine. They can just keep right on printing money ..... no problem!
Yeah, didn't cost me or any other taxpayers a dime.
Since none of these bailouts cost anything, I have an idea. Let's have our government "loan" $1,000,000 to every U.S. citizen.
The economy will boom, we'll end poverty nationwide, and it won't cost taxpayers a dime! .
Yeah, right. And "various banks" bailed out Bear Stearns, too. It wasn't actually the Federal Reserve Bank. And my money market rates didn't actually plummet as a result. The value of the U.S. dollar is just fine. They can just keep right on printing money ..... no problem!
Well, okay, Bear Stearns might have cost the taxpayers some money. The Chrysler turnaround didn't, however, as they paid that loan back, interest and all. Your money market rates plummeted because the Fed cut interest rates to try to give the economy a kick-start, although that doesn't seem to be working. And while your MM accounts plummeted, so did the rate I pay on my HELOC. :shades:
in the city i work in, the trouble makers don't bother going to school. they sleep during the day and are out at night. it's after school you need to worry about. :sick:
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
When this threat was met with laughter the city politicos relented and said it was OK for US citizens to travel freely in their own country (what a great bunch of guys).
Yet you seem to recognize the truckers right to deny US citizens the ability to travel freely in their own country. If truckers are going broke then they need to raise what they charge. It's that simple. It seems to me that some truckers are not going broke. It's just the least efficient operations that are struggling to make it. So is it the government's job to support and perpetuate inefficiency?
The government is facing a huge demand for change that threatens one of its biggest cash cows -- fuel taxes.
The feds take in about 25-30 billion a year in fuel taxes. That makes up around 1% of a 3 trillion dollar budget. It is not nearly the cash cow that so many people believe it to be. I probably used 400 gallons of gas last year, which means I paid $74 in federal fuel taxes. Whooaa, time for a revolution. I paid more than 200 times that much in federal income taxes and I'm by no means a rich person. Anyone concerned about excessive taxation is going to put the federal fuel tax pretty far down on the list of taxes to complain about.
I am in Pennsylvania (Eastern) and we are setting on massive supplies of coal, being mined and shipped overseas. If the Power companies can't afford to build a nuclear plant, how can the oil companies develop alternative fuels? We have not drilled in a serious way since the late 70's. We can build whatever drilling rigs we need which would create thousands of good jobs. Everyone says it will take years, they are correct. But....we must do something, or our country will not be able to maintain anything close to the way of life that we have enjoyed in the past. Sad!
we must do something, or our country will not be able to maintain anything close to the way of life that we have enjoyed in the past. Sad!
That is the Grand Plan. Get US all into a cubicle and feed us pellets made for Distillers grain. You know the stuff that is left over from making Corn Ethanol. Crush all personal vehicles to make mass transit vehicles. The leaders of this Congress ran on lowering the price of gas back in 2006. THEY LIED to get your vote. What's new? The only way it will get straightened out is to vote EVERY incumbent that is running out of office.
Thanks. For now we are going to stick with the cars.
If in the near future I need to reduce my pain at the pump I'll get something like a Fit or a Hybrid. Now is the time to be calm, cool and collected. Over the next few years we should be seeing some interesting vehicles coming out. I also expect prices will moderate somewhat.
C'mon.... look at the other stories on that same page....
June 5, 2008: 11-Year-Old Critical After New Haven Hit-And-Run May 31, 2008: North Haven High School Senior Killed In Crash May 15, 2008: Police: Fed Ex Truck Pushed Audi 700 Feet
So based on this I'd say bar the doors and stay home if you live in Ct!
"The feds take in about 25-30 billion a year in fuel taxes."
That's from you and me. But think about all the taxes they collect from the current gas/diesel infrastructure -- front end, middle, back end, etc.
Not to mention their cut of the profits from all those "greedy" oil companies. When XOM reports $40 billion in profit, that's PROFIT. That means, AFTER the 40% tax they paid to, guess who, the government. Then, they distribute those profits to the stockholders, who pay another 15% tax on top of that.
Our government is not a representative of the people. It's a full-fledged partner in the oil industry, with a huge stake in the status quo. Or did you think that Detroit keeps churning out 100-year-old technology while Congress lets the CAFE standards stagnate for 22 years because that's what "the people" want?
This widespread call for change scares the politicians. Where will the tax money come from if electric cars become viable in a few years? Where will their campaign contributions come from? Their private jet trips (for the price of a first-class fare) to "conferences" and "retreats?"
While $4 gas threatens U.S. consumers, it's an even bigger threat to the weasels in public office. .
Are you saying that if the Republicans were in control of Congress we'd now have lower gas prices? The Democrats in 2006 may have run on a platform of lowering gas prices. Any voter that actually believed that was within their control might be too stupid to deserve good representation. IMO the only thing the US government can do to reduce gas prices is to subsidize gas purchases. Does anyone think that's a good idea? My recollection of the 2006 election was that a lot of people were voting anti-Bush, anti-Iraq. Gas prices could have been $1.50/gallon and the outcome would have been the same.
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. ".... "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. " http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Apparently the pain at the pump will continue for a bit. I better decide on a color for my 2009 Fit, pronto.
BLUE SENSATION/GRAY or TIDEWATER BLUE METALLIC/GRAY or MILANO RED/GRAY or STORM SILVER METALLIC/GRAY (Colors posted at Temple of VTEC)
"You're beginning to sound like a broken record. It has already been pointed out that the Chrysler bailout did not cost the taxpayers one cent."
If you don't think so -- if you don't think that RISK is a part of COST -- then I'd like you to co-sign a loan for me. I want to buy a few properties with someone else's money and with someone else's backing.
Don't worry, I have a great FICO score, and I really know what I'm doing. So you'll get paid back. Whattya say?
It's a better deal than the rest of us got, because you actually have the ability to say no. It's not like some guy to whom I make "campaign contributions" has taken a bunch of money directly out of your paychecks, and will simply cut me the loan without asking you .... but he'll tell you after the deal is done that it's really good for you, because I'm too big to let fail. .
The motorist, John Blomberg, also 52, was driving a 2003 Chevrolet pick-up. He was arrested for his conduct after the accident but not in connection with the accident. Fowler said that right after Dr. Borrus struck his truck, Blomberg became agitated and began to cause a scene. “He was concerned about who was going to pay for the damage to his truck and was cursing loudly as Dr. Borrus lay nearby,” Fowler said.
For all this guy knew he had just killed someone, and he was first worried about who was going to pay to fix his truck. That's just, I don't even know what that is.
"If the Power companies can't afford to build a nuclear plant, how can the oil companies develop alternative fuels?"
You are comparing two completely unrelated things. Let me use an analogy, I cannot walk to the moon, so how can I walk across the street? Building a nuke plant is a whole different critter from making an alternate fuel.
Alternate fuels are being developed. In fact a lot of non-oil companies are developing alternate fuels such as algae to biodiesel. The cost of alternate fuels is probably in the millions of dollars while a nuclear plant will set you back $10 billion or so and take 10 years to build.
"We have not drilled in a serious way since the late 70's."
I hate to keep repeating myself, but this is one of those completely false statements. The amount of drilling is very robust. High material costs, a shortage of rigs and labor is limiting the industry ability to go to even higher levels.
The U.S. rotary rig count is 7.2 percent higher than last year. "Year-over-year oil exploration in the US is up 36.5 percent. " The International rig count, which excludes the US and Canada, is up 6.8 percent above last year's 994. Source: This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.wtrg.com/rotaryrigs.html as retrieved on Jun 14, 2008 16:08:11 GMT.
Do you ever read the Oil & Gas Journal at the library? Or do search on Google News?
"But....we must do something, or our country will not be able to maintain anything close to the way of life that we have enjoyed in the past. Sad! "
People will adjust. You underestimate the ability of people to change. Will there be pain on the way, You betcha. People are buying smaller fuel efficient cars. That trend will continue.
When I retired in the Spring of 2006, every rig they could get a hold of was in operation. They were rebuilding rigs that were stacked out in the 1980s. If they were to offer leases in ANWR it would be years before they would have both the infrastructure and the rigs available to start drilling.
I do think the perception that the US is willing to explore their own oil in the Gulf, ANWR & other Coastal regions would bring the price of oil down. Even though it would be years before any of that oil would be available.
What will Iraq oil do to the price? The Iraqi government is opening up for business from what I read yesterday. Not being tied to OPEC they can sell all they can produce.
Iraq is a member of OPEC. However they are not currently limited by a production quota. I think this is a result of the oil for food sanctions that the UN imposed. Iraq does have vast, undeveloped reserves. If they can ever stabilize enough to allow these fields to be developed I've read estimates that they could potentially produce another 4-5 million barrels a day. However it would take many years to reach this level and by that time it probably wouldn't be enough to cover increased demand and reduced production from aging fields around the world. Also their ability to stabilize is a big if.
So, IMO, the impact more Iraq oil will have on the market will be to keep oill prices from going higher than they otherwise would have. I doubt the price will go down.
"We can't drill our way out of this" has been something of the mantra of those who support greater conservation and alternative fuel development. VP Cheney recently responded with "We can't conserve our way to energy independence." I've heard variants of that echoed by oil execs and analysts in what seems to be a growing chorus. There seems to be increasing political sentiment that we need to remove at least some of our drilling bans.
So, let's suppose
We lift all drilling bans and exploration begins in earnest. The exploration proves promising. Drilling goes online, and the most optimistic estimates of untapped reserves prove to be fairly accurate. Refining capacity is increased via expansion and new construction. It turns out the Saudis are telling the truth and they do indeed have reserves that should last at least 100 years. Iraq settles down and oil starts flowing more freely from there as well. In other words, let's assume a perfect storm of increased supply. Short term looks ahead up to 15 years, long term out to our great-greats.
As a result, fairly quickly say about 2 years or so, the price of oil retreats about 30-40%, maybe even more. Gasoline drops in kind and stabilizes there.
Now the question (and hopefully more will follow). Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, what does this accomplish?
Let’s put some bad dude in charge of Iraq and let him sell all the oil that Iraq can produce. This will break the strangle hold of OPEC and the crude oil will fall, gasoline’s price will follow .Just like during Sadam’s time before the war !!
Now the question (and hopefully more will follow). Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, what does this accomplish?
If history repeats itself, then very little will get accomplished. The oil mess in the early 1970s was really worse than this one. Though the prices did not quite reach todays level. Within a few years we reached our goal of more fuel efficient vehicles and then the price of oil plummeted and it was back to bigger is better. In the late 1970s we dumped a ton of money down the ethanol toilet. Did we do anything to create a viable source of ethanol at that time? Nothing except make money for those that we subsidized. Are we any closer today to a viable alternative vehicle for the masses? Not that I can tell. A few EVs and PHEVs are being tested along with some super expensive fuel cell vehicles.
Because we are impulsive buyers following our knee jerk reaction to gas prices, if gas does go down it will be back to buying big vehicles. If they stay high we will continue to buy Civics and Corollas. None of which makes economic sense to me.
The bottom line is there is enough oil today and the foreseeable future. We are just tied to a system of World oil traders that are playing US like a fiddle..
Not in the oil industry... and have no huge collection of facts, websites or any of the really juicy stuff.
My opinion is that we'd be postponing the inevitable. Bottom line is that oil, as an energy source, will eventually run out, just like the sun will eventually burn out. So let's say that all the projections fall right, supplies are abundant, prices drop 40% etc. even as demand spikes to pre-surge limits and beyond. I think that (unless the exploration/refining technology gets cheaper and more efficient) we'd see REDUCED exploration in some places that are now being considered economically viable. I also see that the higher interest in alternatives will decline, for economic reasons. The soft coalition of "save the planet" and "save my wallet" would fall apart, and folks would reject any changes that they have made - the 30 billion fewer miles driven from last November to this past April (MSNBC) would be seen as a hiccup. And we'd be back here in about 50 years or so.
Cheap gas prices will just mean that much more congestion on the roads.
Ditto cheap electric (or bio-fuel, or hydrogen) cars. Even with driving down a few percentage points, traffic is still nuts. And now highway tax revenues are down so there's less money for maintenance, much less new infrastructure.
Imagine the traffic jams if you could drive around all day on an ounce of water.
"Reduced exploration? Why? With restrictions mostly removed and increased demand don't the economics change favorably enough? "
Sounds like he was referring to exploration in the marginal areas we're now seeing - tight gas and oil sands, tar sands, shale oil, long (expensive) gas pipelines. If oil prices were to drop to, say, $60/bbl, you'd see a lot of that stuff put on the shelf.
Hi, pixdad! My parents live in NE Pennsylvania where there are massive reserves of anthracite coal - hard coal that burns clean! Do you remember when coal companies painted the coal to denote their brand? There was Blue Coal from the Huber Breaker in Nanticoke and red coal from the Reading Company; "If it's Red it's Reading!" How about Jeddo-Highland - The Aristocrat of Anthracite! Who knows? Maybe this energy "crisis" will be a boon to that hard hit region that's been pretty much down since the fall of King Coal in the 1950s.
King Coal was already pretty sick after WWII. Two disasters, one natural and one man-made, pretty much put a bullet in King Coal's head - Hurricane Diane which flooded most of the deep mines in the mid-southern anthracite fields in 1955 and the Knox Mine Disaster where miners actually opened up a hole in the Susquehanna River in 1959 which flooded the northern deep mines.
Sad how the death of King Coal pretty much precipitated the demise of Pennsylvania's other great industries - Rail in the 1960s and Steel in the 1980s.
Philadelphia was once known as the Workshop of the World. Sad thing is the only things now manufactured are crack rocks.
Imagine the traffic jams if you could drive around all day on an ounce of water.
A more likely scenario is running around all day on 50 cents worth of electricity. I don't think the government will allow masses of EVs till they have figured out how to tax the mileage. Tax by the mile makes more sense every day.
The 70's were quite a shock to the system. You're right though, our motivation to do anything significant in its wake waned pretty quickly. The dynamics are different this time around, but do you really think that our motivation would evaporate just as quickly this time as well?
As much as I would like to see oil at $60 per barrel again for my own cheap selfish reasons. I am getting to like the slightly lighter traffic. Then I think about Steve and his water car. That would be disastrous in terms of the infrastructure. No gas tax, No roads built or repaired. Plus as several here have pointed out. If the price drops much the incentive to explore, develop and produce will diminish. I watched it happen in the late 1980s through 1990s. There was hardly a rig working up in the Arctic. It was like we ain't drilling for $20 per barrel oil. The oil companies only produced what they had agreed to do with the State of Alaska.
I agree. Fuel costs are just one of the problems resulting in our dependence on private vehicles to get around. Congestion is a very real and growing problem. The population is supposed to hit 400 million by 2040. Our current policy of building and maintaining more roads for more drivers travelling more miles is obviously unsustainable. So while I believe it is important for us to transition away from oil we also need to create an incentive to find an alternative to driving. As you pointed out, if it was extremely cheap to drive the long term consequences would be disastrous.
One of the lead engineers involved with the development of GM's EV1 was Dr. Paul McCready. In an interview he emphatically stated that the EV was not the solution to our future transportation needs. He stated that the introduction of affordable EVs without addressing our basic philosophy of using POVs as our primary mode of transportation will have our roadways looking like Bangkok.
Exactly. As long as easy supply exceeds demand there would be no real economic incentive to get the gard stuff, forget about the political incentive to NOT explore. In addition, companies looking for seed capital to explore "what if" technologies would find it harder to find speculators if the anticipated return was either very long term, or a smaller return than other investments. I also am skeptical about the real change in people's behavior without an economic incentive - so gas is cheap, I go get that Hummer I always wanted.... well, maybe not
Tuk-tuks are sort of fun but I wore contacts the last time I rode in one and the fumes about killed my eyeballs. Make mine more CLEVER than that.
You can tax water ok Gary - it's the congestion that'll make it impossible to get anywhere.
Kids in Japan are apparently more interested in iPods and gizmos than in cars as declining JDM sales seem to indicate. Maybe that'll happen here in another short generation or two?
" The oil mess in the early 1970s was really worse than this one."
Correct! In fact, my question about today's prices is this:
If we're paying $4/gal. because supply is so low, and demand is so high .... if China and India are suddenly consuming so much ..... if OPEC quotas and hurricanes and problems in Nigeria are stifling production .... then where are the "Out of Gas" signs like the stations had back in '73? Where are the two-hour lines of cars waiting to fill their tanks?
Where's the shortage of that supply?
Seems to me the supply/demand/price thing is just another lie based on circular reasoning: "The price of gas is high because supply is low. But you can always find gas because the price is high."
I think you hit the nail on the head with your last line, "We are just tied to a system of World oil traders that are playing US like a fiddle." .
"Where are the two-hour lines of cars waiting to fill their tanks? "
Easy - we faced a short term cutoff from several big producers back then, immediate shortfall, not the gradual tightening we're experiencing now. Markets now appear to be working, that's why we don't have the lines. Thankfully the government is keeping out of it. Part of the problem in the '70s was the government meddling with supplies, price caps, and gas distribution. A real mess.
Yes, old-school tuk-tuks probably put out more pollution than 100 modern cars.
I think I dump about that much crud in the air when I borrow my neighbor's 20 year old 12hp riding mower! A weed whacker is on my "to buy" list and I'd rather deal with 150' of extension cord than wind up with any more gas motors around here (since my Snapper and my mulcher have both died in the last six months, I'm down to just two gas cars). Be nice if a battery breakthrough would happen so I could get a cordless that would be tough enough for my weedy pasture.
Nothing wrong with crude, but I'd rather have a power plant burn natural gas and just send the electrons to my house so I can skip the gas and oil.
Our current policy of building and maintaining more roads for more drivers travelling more miles is obviously unsustainable.
Are we really building a ton of new roads? I'm not saying that we aren't, I simply am surprised because the political pressures/environmental issues/NIMBY problems make that construction a long drawn out nightmare. Most of the construction I see is the widening of existing sections of highway, but nothing really new, and nothing really complete - by that I mean adding things like one lane to a section of the BQE, but not widening the entire thing, so you simply move the choke points. Ironically, the housing boom in many areas has been pushing tons of people out to rural/exurban areas where the infrastructure was designed for much smaller volumes.
Road building's tough, but you should see the plans they have for TX - pretty much duplicating all the interstates, but with toll roads. Doubt it'll happen.
Comments
Fed up with $5+ diesel, a thousand truckers are going to shut down the capital of New York (Albany) in protest. This after state leaders refused to even talk to representatives of the truckers.
The only response initially was that the Albany police would put up road blocks all around the city and refuse to let any trucks enter. When this threat was met with laughter the city politicos relented and said it was OK for US citizens to travel freely in their own country (what a great bunch of guys).
The leaders of the NYS legislature in response to the plight of the truckers (some of whom are losing their trucks and homes) was to propose INCREASING taxes on oil companies which would add another 10 cents to diesel.
I'd watch this one folks. The protesters say this will be peaceful but with the attitude I'm seeing from state government it might get nasty. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Various banks and other institutions who are in the business of lending money ... Didn't cost the taxpayers a dime."
Yeah, right. And "various banks" bailed out Bear Stearns, too. It wasn't actually the Federal Reserve Bank. And my money market rates didn't actually plummet as a result. The value of the U.S. dollar is just fine. They can just keep right on printing money ..... no problem!
Yeah, didn't cost me or any other taxpayers a dime.
Since none of these bailouts cost anything, I have an idea. Let's have our government "loan" $1,000,000 to every U.S. citizen.
The economy will boom, we'll end poverty nationwide, and it won't cost taxpayers a dime!
.
Of course it will. The government is facing a huge demand for change that threatens one of its biggest cash cows -- fuel taxes.
Well, okay, Bear Stearns might have cost the taxpayers some money. The Chrysler turnaround didn't, however, as they paid that loan back, interest and all. Your money market rates plummeted because the Fed cut interest rates to try to give the economy a kick-start, although that doesn't seem to be working. And while your MM accounts plummeted, so did the rate I pay on my HELOC. :shades:
23% over? wow, I only get 28% over EPA estimates just by driving conservatively and I save $ by not buying snake oil.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
they sleep during the day and are out at night.
it's after school you need to worry about. :sick:
think of it as a co-signer.
Yet you seem to recognize the truckers right to deny US citizens the ability to travel freely in their own country. If truckers are going broke then they need to raise what they charge. It's that simple. It seems to me that some truckers are not going broke. It's just the least efficient operations that are struggling to make it. So is it the government's job to support and perpetuate inefficiency?
The feds take in about 25-30 billion a year in fuel taxes. That makes up around 1% of a 3 trillion dollar budget. It is not nearly the cash cow that so many people believe it to be. I probably used 400 gallons of gas last year, which means I paid $74 in federal fuel taxes. Whooaa, time for a revolution. I paid more than 200 times that much in federal income taxes and I'm by no means a rich person. Anyone concerned about excessive taxation is going to put the federal fuel tax pretty far down on the list of taxes to complain about.
That is the Grand Plan. Get US all into a cubicle and feed us pellets made for Distillers grain. You know the stuff that is left over from making Corn Ethanol. Crush all personal vehicles to make mass transit vehicles. The leaders of this Congress ran on lowering the price of gas back in 2006. THEY LIED to get your vote. What's new? The only way it will get straightened out is to vote EVERY incumbent that is running out of office.
If in the near future I need to reduce my pain at the pump I'll get something like a Fit or a Hybrid. Now is the time to be calm, cool and collected. Over the next few years we should be seeing some interesting vehicles coming out. I also expect prices will moderate somewhat.
In the case of Chrysler and Bear Stearns, YES!
not good
June 5, 2008: 11-Year-Old Critical After New Haven Hit-And-Run
May 31, 2008: North Haven High School Senior Killed In Crash
May 15, 2008: Police: Fed Ex Truck Pushed Audi 700 Feet
So based on this I'd say bar the doors and stay home if you live in Ct!
You're beginning to sound like a broken record. It has already been pointed out that the Chrysler bailout did not cost the taxpayers one cent.
That's from you and me. But think about all the taxes they collect from the current gas/diesel infrastructure -- front end, middle, back end, etc.
Not to mention their cut of the profits from all those "greedy" oil companies. When XOM reports $40 billion in profit, that's PROFIT. That means, AFTER the 40% tax they paid to, guess who, the government. Then, they distribute those profits to the stockholders, who pay another 15% tax on top of that.
Our government is not a representative of the people. It's a full-fledged partner in the oil industry, with a huge stake in the status quo. Or did you think that Detroit keeps churning out 100-year-old technology while Congress lets the CAFE standards stagnate for 22 years because that's what "the people" want?
This widespread call for change scares the politicians. Where will the tax money come from if electric cars become viable in a few years? Where will their campaign contributions come from? Their private jet trips (for the price of a first-class fare) to "conferences" and "retreats?"
While $4 gas threatens U.S. consumers, it's an even bigger threat to the weasels in public office.
.
And it sounds like the pickup driver really would have gone off his nut had the good doc been driving a HUMMER instead of riding his bike.
Yale Doctor’s Heart Attack Led to Fatal Bicycle Crash
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. "
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Apparently the pain at the pump will continue for a bit. I better decide on a color for my 2009 Fit, pronto.
BLUE SENSATION/GRAY or
TIDEWATER BLUE METALLIC/GRAY or
MILANO RED/GRAY or
STORM SILVER METALLIC/GRAY
(Colors posted at Temple of VTEC)
I'm thinking blue. :shades:
If you don't think so -- if you don't think that RISK is a part of COST -- then I'd like you to co-sign a loan for me. I want to buy a few properties with someone else's money and with someone else's backing.
Don't worry, I have a great FICO score, and I really know what I'm doing. So you'll get paid back. Whattya say?
It's a better deal than the rest of us got, because you actually have the ability to say no. It's not like some guy to whom I make "campaign contributions" has taken a bunch of money directly out of your paychecks, and will simply cut me the loan without asking you .... but he'll tell you after the deal is done that it's really good for you, because I'm too big to let fail.
.
The motorist, John Blomberg, also 52, was driving a 2003 Chevrolet pick-up. He was arrested for his conduct after the accident but not in connection with the accident. Fowler said that right after Dr. Borrus struck his truck, Blomberg became agitated and began to cause a scene. “He was concerned about who was going to pay for the damage to his truck and was cursing loudly as Dr. Borrus lay nearby,” Fowler said.
For all this guy knew he had just killed someone, and he was first worried about who was going to pay to fix his truck. That's just, I don't even know what that is.
You are comparing two completely unrelated things. Let me use an analogy, I cannot walk to the moon, so how can I walk across the street? Building a nuke plant is a whole different critter from making an alternate fuel.
Alternate fuels are being developed. In fact a lot of non-oil companies are developing alternate fuels such as algae to biodiesel. The cost of alternate fuels is probably in the millions of dollars while a nuclear plant will set you back $10 billion or so and take 10 years to build.
"We have not drilled in a serious way since the late 70's."
I hate to keep repeating myself, but this is one of those completely false statements. The amount of drilling is very robust. High material costs, a shortage of rigs and labor is limiting the industry ability to go to even higher levels.
The U.S. rotary rig count is 7.2 percent higher than last year.
"Year-over-year oil exploration in the US is up 36.5 percent. "
The International rig count, which excludes the US and Canada, is up 6.8 percent above last year's 994.
Source: This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.wtrg.com/rotaryrigs.html as retrieved on Jun 14, 2008 16:08:11 GMT.
Do you ever read the Oil & Gas Journal at the library? Or do search on Google News?
"But....we must do something, or our country will not be able to maintain anything close to the way of life that we have enjoyed in the past. Sad! "
People will adjust. You underestimate the ability of people to change. Will there be pain on the way, You betcha. People are buying smaller fuel efficient cars. That trend will continue.
When I retired in the Spring of 2006, every rig they could get a hold of was in operation. They were rebuilding rigs that were stacked out in the 1980s. If they were to offer leases in ANWR it would be years before they would have both the infrastructure and the rigs available to start drilling.
I do think the perception that the US is willing to explore their own oil in the Gulf, ANWR & other Coastal regions would bring the price of oil down. Even though it would be years before any of that oil would be available.
What will Iraq oil do to the price? The Iraqi government is opening up for business from what I read yesterday. Not being tied to OPEC they can sell all they can produce.
So, IMO, the impact more Iraq oil will have on the market will be to keep oill prices from going higher than they otherwise would have. I doubt the price will go down.
"We can't drill our way out of this" has been something of the mantra of those who support greater conservation and alternative fuel development. VP Cheney recently responded with "We can't conserve our way to energy independence." I've heard variants of that echoed by oil execs and analysts in what seems to be a growing chorus. There seems to be increasing political sentiment that we need to remove at least some of our drilling bans.
So, let's suppose
We lift all drilling bans and exploration begins in earnest. The exploration proves promising. Drilling goes online, and the most optimistic estimates of untapped reserves prove to be fairly accurate. Refining capacity is increased via expansion and new construction. It turns out the Saudis are telling the truth and they do indeed have reserves that should last at least 100 years. Iraq settles down and oil starts flowing more freely from there as well. In other words, let's assume a perfect storm of increased supply. Short term looks ahead up to 15 years, long term out to our great-greats.
As a result, fairly quickly say about 2 years or so, the price of oil retreats about 30-40%, maybe even more. Gasoline drops in kind and stabilizes there.
Now the question (and hopefully more will follow). Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, what does this accomplish?
choose your dance partner
If history repeats itself, then very little will get accomplished. The oil mess in the early 1970s was really worse than this one. Though the prices did not quite reach todays level. Within a few years we reached our goal of more fuel efficient vehicles and then the price of oil plummeted and it was back to bigger is better. In the late 1970s we dumped a ton of money down the ethanol toilet. Did we do anything to create a viable source of ethanol at that time? Nothing except make money for those that we subsidized. Are we any closer today to a viable alternative vehicle for the masses? Not that I can tell. A few EVs and PHEVs are being tested along with some super expensive fuel cell vehicles.
Because we are impulsive buyers following our knee jerk reaction to gas prices, if gas does go down it will be back to buying big vehicles. If they stay high we will continue to buy Civics and Corollas. None of which makes economic sense to me.
The bottom line is there is enough oil today and the foreseeable future. We are just tied to a system of World oil traders that are playing US like a fiddle..
My opinion is that we'd be postponing the inevitable. Bottom line is that oil, as an energy source, will eventually run out, just like the sun will eventually burn out. So let's say that all the projections fall right, supplies are abundant, prices drop 40% etc. even as demand spikes to pre-surge limits and beyond. I think that (unless the exploration/refining technology gets cheaper and more efficient) we'd see REDUCED exploration in some places that are now being considered economically viable. I also see that the higher interest in alternatives will decline, for economic reasons. The soft coalition of "save the planet" and "save my wallet" would fall apart, and folks would reject any changes that they have made - the 30 billion fewer miles driven from last November to this past April (MSNBC) would be seen as a hiccup. And we'd be back here in about 50 years or so.
Ditto cheap electric (or bio-fuel, or hydrogen) cars. Even with driving down a few percentage points, traffic is still nuts. And now highway tax revenues are down so there's less money for maintenance, much less new infrastructure.
Imagine the traffic jams if you could drive around all day on an ounce of water.
That's ok. It's all a big assumption anyway. Add your own juice.
Reduced exploration? Why? With restrictions mostly removed and increased demand don't the economics change favorably enough?
Sounds like he was referring to exploration in the marginal areas we're now seeing - tight gas and oil sands, tar sands, shale oil, long (expensive) gas pipelines. If oil prices were to drop to, say, $60/bbl, you'd see a lot of that stuff put on the shelf.
King Coal was already pretty sick after WWII. Two disasters, one natural and one man-made, pretty much put a bullet in King Coal's head - Hurricane Diane which flooded most of the deep mines in the mid-southern anthracite fields in 1955 and the Knox Mine Disaster where miners actually opened up a hole in the Susquehanna River in 1959 which flooded the northern deep mines.
Sad how the death of King Coal pretty much precipitated the demise of Pennsylvania's other great industries - Rail in the 1960s and Steel in the 1980s.
Philadelphia was once known as the Workshop of the World. Sad thing is the only things now manufactured are crack rocks.
A more likely scenario is running around all day on 50 cents worth of electricity. I don't think the government will allow masses of EVs till they have figured out how to tax the mileage. Tax by the mile makes more sense every day.
One of the lead engineers involved with the development of GM's EV1 was Dr. Paul McCready. In an interview he emphatically stated that the EV was not the solution to our future transportation needs. He stated that the introduction of affordable EVs without addressing our basic philosophy of using POVs as our primary mode of transportation will have our roadways looking like Bangkok.
Tuk-tuks are sort of fun but I wore contacts the last time I rode in one and the fumes about killed my eyeballs. Make mine more CLEVER than that.
You can tax water ok Gary - it's the congestion that'll make it impossible to get anywhere.
Kids in Japan are apparently more interested in iPods and gizmos than in cars as declining JDM sales seem to indicate. Maybe that'll happen here in another short generation or two?
Correct! In fact, my question about today's prices is this:
If we're paying $4/gal. because supply is so low, and demand is so high .... if China and India are suddenly consuming so much ..... if OPEC quotas and hurricanes and problems in Nigeria are stifling production .... then where are the "Out of Gas" signs like the stations had back in '73? Where are the two-hour lines of cars waiting to fill their tanks?
Where's the shortage of that supply?
Seems to me the supply/demand/price thing is just another lie based on circular reasoning: "The price of gas is high because supply is low. But you can always find gas because the price is high."
I think you hit the nail on the head with your last line, "We are just tied to a system of World oil traders that are playing US like a fiddle."
.
Easy - we faced a short term cutoff from several big producers back then, immediate shortfall, not the gradual tightening we're experiencing now. Markets now appear to be working, that's why we don't have the lines. Thankfully the government is keeping out of it. Part of the problem in the '70s was the government meddling with supplies, price caps, and gas distribution. A real mess.
I think I dump about that much crud in the air when I borrow my neighbor's 20 year old 12hp riding mower! A weed whacker is on my "to buy" list and I'd rather deal with 150' of extension cord than wind up with any more gas motors around here (since my Snapper and my mulcher have both died in the last six months, I'm down to just two gas cars). Be nice if a battery breakthrough would happen so I could get a cordless that would be tough enough for my weedy pasture.
Nothing wrong with crude, but I'd rather have a power plant burn natural gas and just send the electrons to my house so I can skip the gas and oil.
Are we really building a ton of new roads? I'm not saying that we aren't, I simply am surprised because the political pressures/environmental issues/NIMBY problems make that construction a long drawn out nightmare. Most of the construction I see is the widening of existing sections of highway, but nothing really new, and nothing really complete - by that I mean adding things like one lane to a section of the BQE, but not widening the entire thing, so you simply move the choke points. Ironically, the housing boom in many areas has been pushing tons of people out to rural/exurban areas where the infrastructure was designed for much smaller volumes.